If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Zimmerman case was a simple self-defense case. All of the evidence--witnesses, head wounds, and even the path of the gunshot itself-- points to Trayvon Martin having been on top of Zimmerman, beating his head to a pulp. Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot in self-defense.

There has been no change in the evidence the whole time. There has only been a well-funded PR campaign that has created false "evidence" which either fell apart on the stand (Dee Dee, the neighbords) or didn't appear at all (Mary Cutcher).

For you to invoke Zimmerman to support your attack on Nova is ludicrous and shows how little you know about the Martin-Zimmerman case.

As for Nova, he talks big, but I don't him imagine shooting anyone, even in self-defense....unless his local Wal Mart gets too crowded.

First of all, there is no attack on Nova (not from me anyway, where's your outrage at others? lol). You'd know it if I wanted to attack him or anybody else. I was asking for clarification on his position, which he's done that (thanks, Nova).

Next, what I was trying to say was that even if you use a gun in self-defense, you might have to prove it was for self-defense later on (making the 2nd amendment useless in some cases). The reason you have to prove it is because somebody might claim that you did it out of malice or that you didn't have to go as far as you did (possible manslaughter charge). IOW, just because somebody hits you doesn't give you the right to use lethal force. You might end up having to prove that was necessary later on.

Since I am not immediately familiar with the post you are recalling, then it's difficult to answer you. I think you are assuming that there are conflicting positions on my part. I do support the right to free speech, and I do support the right to defend yourself when under physical attack. Neither of those rights is in conflict with my savage amusement at the prospect of Larry Keffer or Fred Phelps being bitchslapped in public.

So, what you are saying is that while you support the right of people that you dislike to say things that you disagree with, you would still derive enjoyment from seeing them physically assaulted. Thanks for clearing that up. Saying that you support their right to free speech but want to see them assaulted for it doesn't strike you as contradictory?

Originally Posted by Novaheart

You will note that the street preacher was assaulted in Seattle, not St. Petersburg. People in St Pete know that other people are armed and legally able to defend themselves.